Total Depravity...

Of course he did! I'm not considering the "back end" of salvation. I'm talking about how Noah was saved.

skypair

 

Of course -- but who told Noah if everyone else was considered worthy of destruction by flood?? It had to be God the Spirit, right? Indeed, Heb 11:7 says God Himself warned him.

OK, I misspoke. I shoulda stopped when I called him a "type." Good catch! :laugh:

That's a favorite equation of Calvinism. Don't necessarily believe it. (See below)

The statement of the order would suggest that God warned -- Noah was moved with/animated by fear -- then, by faith, Noah prepared the ark.

I can agree with that. "does according to what he believes and thus proves the truth" (that is, receives faith). Heb 11:1 restated in your own words, right? There is a distinction even in the way you just described it, allan.

skypair

 

Of course he did what, preached the gospel? How comes he didn't get saved by any gospel? What's the back-end of salvation and what are these other gospels you speak of?

Yes, you said that because Noah believed in the coming flood and built his boat, for that reason God gave him faith, because he built the Ark. Am I wrong?

You have changed your story.

And then you change it back again.

john.

 

anyway...

Ok, let us look at this.

1. There is a hardening that takes place, and it is not to be presumed they were not previously blind.

1 -
a. Please show where scripture ever makes reference or speaks directly to a people who are blind before they were ever hardened. (I believe scripturally they are one and the same)

b. If they were previously blind then what is the purpose for the hardening? That would be like gauging out their eyes so they could not see, even though they were blind. Your logic is void here.

c. Scripture does not say all are blinded Larry, if so please show us. It says all sin. You will ONLY find blinding and hardening occuring AFTER they have commited themselves to unbelief. In any event, please show scripture that states all sinners are blind and can not see the truth that God reveals to them.

d. If there is a hardening that takes place there has to have been a time when they were not hard but receptive and if receptive then not blind for the saw and knew the truth.

e. Sin IS a blinding agent and that we are all sinners shows the very reason God must and does reveal His truths to man (to both the saved and non). While we can not see for ourselves, it is God who reveals all spiritual truths.

f. If all sinners are blind and hardened and only the regenerate can know God, His glory, Sin, Righteousness, and coming judgment. Then why does scripture say over and over that those are saved but in unbelief know these same things and in rejecting that knowledge that they might be saved have damned themselves.

g. There is not two different types of understandings in scripture. If you can find that, again, please show us. The Hebrew nor the Greek distinquish between to types of understanding (one for the saved and one for the lost - who do not really understand) This is either conjecture or logic based on a faulty premise thus concluding an incorrect analysis of the facts.

 

Oh no you don't. Don't make me get my pliers after that tongue of yours (or fingers) :laugh:

I agree Helen that you broke the fellowship in this thread whereby not one of us has resorted to condesending remarks at another. Some may or may not have strong feelings toward those who to a view (or specific view) we do not. But we should not think of ourselves more highly than we aught, in the sense we belittle or speak derogatorilly toward another believer.
I am guilty at times as well but that does not make it right...ever.

 

Don't do it man! It ain't his fault it's God's.

john.

 

Eph 4:17-19; Rom 3:10-23; 2 Cor 4:1-6; etc.

I never said it was logical. I do believe it is theological. I am not against logic, and ultiamtely I believe there is perfect logic in it. I do recognize that our minds are limited in understanding the infinite God. There are some things we must believe simply because they are said. If we don't understand them, that is a testament to the way that sin has corrupted our minds. The hardening is to increase judicial punishment.

I did. To counter your argument with a similar argument, Scripture never says some are blinded.

Not necessarily, not according to the whole of Scripture. This is where I think you are taking parts of Scripture and building a theology from them rather than the whole of Scripture.

Exactly. So if sin is a blinding agent, then all who sinned are blinded. Which is exactly my point. God must reveal truth to man. Again, it seems that you are agreeing with me in this point, though you are trying not to.

I am not sure what you mean by "those are saved but in unbelief." Is that two groups or one? I think they are two groups. Those who are unbelieving have no one to blame but themselves. They refuse to turn to God and be saved.

It is clear there are two types of understanding, though I would not use those words. It could be shown from many places, but I will choose John 8. There, Christ is having a conversation with the Pharisees, proving that the Pharisees could understand his word. Yet Christ says "you do not hear" meaning in context, you do not understand. THat has to be the spiritual import of the words that he is talking about. It is clear they could undestand the words and grammar since they were carrying on a conversation. Yet it is clear that they did not understand the spiritual significance of the words being used.

 

God warned Noah of His coming judgment, not that God taught Noah cause there was no one else. Noah most likely had some godly influences in his life at a young age and by the time of God speaking to Noah concerning the flood they had died. (for example...Methuselah - a man of God and Noahs grandfather - had to die before God could send his judgment and there were other around with him) Could God have spoken to Noah as well? Yes. But then you have a hard time reconcilling God leading Noah to know Him and about Him, then later Noah found grace in Gods eyes.

Noah walked with God, just like his father Lamech, his grandfather Methuselah, and his great grandfather Enoch (who walked with God and was not). See the connection?? He had a Godly heritage and upbringing.

Actually that is from a study I did, when a couple of pastors could not give me an answer as to what faith is biblically. Long before I EVER heard of Calvinism. Besides that, it is the known definition and one Adrian Rogers held to as well. And I KNOW he was not a Calvinist.

Maybe, but that is how scripture states it.

in conjunction with:

He didn't believe, was moved, AND THEN WAS GIVEN faith.

[/quote]I can agree with that. "does according to what he believes and thus proves the truth" (that is, receives faith). Heb 11:1 restated in your own words, right? There is a distinction even in the way you just described it, allan.

skypair[/QUOTE]
Actually it was restated with the definitions in place of certain words. But yes, to that effect it was in my words.
No there is no distinction except for the verb and noun.

Faith (noun) is the fact or statements (Jesus and or Gods Word) we acknowledge are truth by acting according to what they state.

Faith (verb) is the act of acknowledging a fact or statment (Jesus, or Gods Word) is true.

The same definitions just one concerns the object which we are to obey and the other concerns the actions we do in responce to the object.

 

No, a man cannot choose to believe something (or someone) he does not believe.

No, a man cannot choose to have faith in something (or someone) he does not have faith in.

Your faith in a chair comes through a natural process. You have "faith" in it because you've come to expect it to hold you up through experience.

By what natural process can you convince an unbeliever to believe? He's already seen the sky and stars and the order of the Universe and all that; and he's heard the gospel too, and yet he is not convinced. How will you now convince him?

 

I'm not sure I follow this line of thinking. Are you saying you cannot have faith in something (someone) until you first have faith in it (him)? That sounds kind of redundant, don't you think? That's like saying all red cars can only be red.

 

Blammo, here's a personal story that got me to thinking the difference between belief / faith.

I had the opportunity to buy shares in Kmart once they filed bankruptcy. The shares dropped to .08 a share. I honestly believed it would only go up in price, as the odds for it to go lower were historically not in favor of doing so. This belief came from research and prior knowledge of how investments work. Now, even though I believed it would go up, I did not buy any shares in the company. Why? I had head knowledge of the situation, but no faith in the company. Faith is belief in action. Had I had faith in the company, and not only head knowledge, I would be sitting on over $100 a share today (due to the Sears acquisition of Kmart). My lack of faith kept me from buying the shares, even though I had the head knowledge due to research the odds were it would go up from .08 share. I really believed it would be a good investment. I didn't act out in faith.

 

I think you understand what I'm saying. Having said that, there are verses where believe and belief are the same thing as faith. "Believe and you will be saved" is definately talking about faith. The fact Scripture talls us the demons believe and tremble doesn't refer to faith.

 

Blammo, you're very perceptive in this area.

Right! You got it!

Have you done any study in the area of presuppositional vs evidential apologetics? This is what you're dealing with. I believe in presupposition. Evidence is only effective in those that are predisposed to believe. You can show the same evidence, that converted you, to unbelievers, and they'll mock you. Only God can change their predisposition. Hence the supernatural nature of the new birth and its attending fruits of repentance and faith. Present the evidence for God and Christ to someone that has been supernaturally given the desire to know God, and they will convert. And for those people that God has prepared for salvation, not only does nature provide evidence, but even more the scripture and preaching provides evidence for faith.

 

Blammo said right - you either have faith, or you don't have it. You can't choose to have something you don't have. You can pretend that you have it, but if you don't have it, you don't have it.

Profound, eh?

 

Although faith and belief/believe is often used interchangeably in scripture, I've always understood faith as the noun and believing as the verb, although faith can be a verb and belief can be a noun. But when we talk about exercising faith, really all we are saying that we must put the noun faith into action by believing.

Take Rom 10 for example. Paul said "how shall they believe in whom they have not heard?" When the Gospel is preached, those that have faith begin to have Christ as the object of their faith, and therefore they believe.

I believe faith is nuetral but belief is active. When there is an object for faith, namely, Christ, then belief can take place. This notion bleeds out into other areas of controversy (for example, are there people walking around who possess faith but have never exercised it due to a lack of knowledge of the Gospel?) I tend to see things this way, but I know that theologians superior to me prefer to focus on the interchangeability of faith and belief.

 

More on faith as a possession - I just wanted to recognize that many theologians, including Calvinists, do not hold to my emphasis of faith as a possession. Many see faith as a human quality that is already residing in every person, but that depraved man can not exercise his faith unto salvation unless his faith is supernatually awakened to Christ through regeneration. Classical Arminians also believe that faith must be awakened by God, but that it is universally accomplished, but some people are able to resist the exercise of that awakened faith.

 

RB;
You do not have even one scripture that says man is disabled and you know it. You say I need more than i have presented. Would you like it again?. You say man is disabled prove it with scripture and not your idea of logical thinking. Open up the truth of the word and show us where it says man is disabled? The concept isn't even there.

Romans 3 may say men do not seek God but it doesn't say they can't. It doesn't say they can't seek God once exposed to the gospel and drawn. It doesn't say man is unable to hear the gospel with out regeneration. These things have been added to theology by Calvinism. They're not in scripture. It may be true that men don't seek God on there own but they don't have to, God seeks them. Then when you say there is none who understands how can they unless they hear the gospel. You cut that out all together by saying or claiming they can't hear. No where does scripture say that the natural man can't hear. I know of a lot of unsaved people who understand quite well, they can hear it, and they're not saved. I heard it and understood it before I was saved, but I wasn't ready to surrender. You believe that you were saved with out believing and the Bible says just the opposite it says, believe and you will be saved, Act 16:31. Belief come first.
There is no regeneration with out believing in the Lord Jesus Christ. It's a condition. It may be true that our faith won't save us but the faith of Christ does and you must believe in order to have the saving faith of Christ.

Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

MB